This is a discussion on Heads up allin EV question within the online poker forums, in the Cash Games section; Imagine a, rather wild and exagarated but plausible, scenario 6max for example.
NLHE €.50 €1, 100bb effective
Hero SB AsKh
Villain BTN TsTh
Action: hand is folded to the

Villain shoves his remaining €97 all-in, making the Pot €116.50. Hero calls with his €84.50.

Hero is 43.5% underdog
Villain is 56.5% favourite

After calculating Hero's EV 116.5 * .435= 50.68, -84.5 * .56.5= -47.74 we have found out his EV is +2.94

Let's have a look at villains point of view. Pot is 19.50. Somehow miraculously villain knows 100% that hero will call all in bet. So villain is facing Hero's 3bet. Pot is 19.50 and hero has 84.50 left. This makes the potential (which we know will happen 100%) €104. That gives Villain 104/97. Let's see his EV.
104 * .565=58.76
-97 * .435= - 42.195
EV= +16.57

Now, isn't this rather strange? I mean, I understand that that is what the Pot offers to them both. But isn't this rather fallible way of calculating profit? The only external contribution was €1 from the BB. The rest is from the the 2 contestants, who both show +EV?? That is impossible. They cannot both show +EV. There must be an error somewhere.

Thanks everyone.

#2

4th May 2016, 5:53 PM

TimovieMan [2,264]

Online Poker at: Pokerstars

Game: Texas Holdem

Originally Posted by Daithi

Now, isn't this rather strange? I mean, I understand that that is what the Pot offers to them both. But isn't this rather fallible way of calculating profit? The only external contribution was €1 from the BB. The rest is from the the 2 contestants, who both show +EV?? That is impossible. They cannot both show +EV. There must be an error somewhere.

Thanks everyone.

There is no error. You have to take each decision as its own separate entity. So the bets that both players put in the pot no longer count for the TT decision to go all-in, and the AK decision to call.

There's more talk about that in this thread (https://www.cardschat.com/f50/100-nlhe-6-max-ak-4bet-289511/).

#3

4th May 2016, 6:44 PM

DrazaFFT [5,845]

Poker at: FT, PS

Game: NLHE

I havent look deep in the calculation but at the first glance on the OP i'd say that it surely can be +ev for both cuz of the dead money.

#4

4th May 2016, 6:50 PM

Daithi [123]

Originally Posted by DrazaFFT

I havent look deep in the calculation but at the first glance on the OP i'd say that it surely can be +ev for both cuz of the dead money.

Hi Draza . Here we are again on about EV ).

Now, "dead money". I would appreciate if you could define "dead money". Is it just the Big Blind or is it everything in the pot prior going all in?

Thanks.

#5

4th May 2016, 6:55 PM

Daithi [123]

Originally Posted by TimovieMan

There is no error. You have to take each decision as its own separate entity. So the bets that both players put in the pot no longer count for the TT decision to go all-in, and the AK decision to call.

There's more talk about that in this thread (https://www.cardschat.com/f50/100-nlhe-6-max-ak-4bet-289511/).

Hi. Thanks for the reply. I did have a look at the other thread. It is similar indeed. Nevertheless, I think my OP is more concise and simplified in relation to the matter, so I would stick with that.

Now, I do understand what "has been put in the pot belongs to the pot." I have read this in a number of poker books. But fundamentally, especially in this example it just doesn't make sense. I do admit it is hard topic, for me at least, to wrap my head around.

Let's imagine the situation in OP going over 100x. Now according to the formula both players are showing +EV. But surely as hell Hero would be down in negative in his report. There is no way he would be green.

#6

4th May 2016, 6:55 PM

TimovieMan [2,264]

Online Poker at: Pokerstars

Game: Texas Holdem

Originally Posted by Daithi

Now, "dead money". I would appreciate if you could define "dead money". Is it just the Big Blind or is it everything in the pot prior going all in?

Everything in the pot prior to going all-in. Each decision stands on its own. Once you reach the all-in, everything that is in the pot is dead money. It doesn't matter if it was yours or not. It no longer is now.

#7

4th May 2016, 7:01 PM

rhombus [2,578]

Game: NL/PLO/PLO8

re: Poker & Heads up allin EV question

Originally Posted by DrazaFFT

I havent look deep in the calculation but at the first glance on the OP i'd say that it surely can be +ev for both cuz of the dead money.

+1.

Alot of people tend to think the money in the pot is theirs, when it actually belongs to the pot.

Exaggerated example Full Ring all $100 Effective.

UTG raises $99 they all call.

On the flop UTG bets his last $1 and voila +EV for all 9 players

#8

4th May 2016, 7:02 PM

TimovieMan [2,264]

Online Poker at: Pokerstars

Game: Texas Holdem

Originally Posted by Daithi

Let's imagine the situation in OP going over 100x. Now according to the formula both players are showing +EV. But surely as hell Hero would be down in negative in his report. There is no way he would be green.

If Hero knows the opponent has TT ALWAYS, then it's going to be -EV for him. But he doesn't.

TT open-raises for value with a strong hand. AK 3-bets for value with a strong hand that's well ahead of most opening ranges. TT shoving can be profitable if there's enough fold equity, but I don't think it's ahead of a 4-bet calling range, so if there's one decision that's a bit iffy, it's this one, imo.
Once TT shoves, AK again has enough pot odds and equity to make the call +EV.

Every decision is it's own thing.

#9

4th May 2016, 7:11 PM

Daithi [123]

Originally Posted by TimovieMan

Everything in the pot prior to going all-in. Each decision stands on its own. Once you reach the all-in, everything that is in the pot is dead money. It doesn't matter if it was yours or not. It no longer is now.

I'm afraid this might be incorrect definition of dead money.

Source Wikipedia:In poker, dead money is the amount of money in the pot other than the equal amounts bet by active remaining players in that pot. Examples of dead money include money contributed to the pot by players who have folded, a dead blind posted by a player returning to a game after missing blinds, or an odd chip left in the pot from a previous deal. For example, eight players each ante (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betting_in_poker#Ante) $1, one player opens for $2, and gets two callers, making the pot total $14. Three players are now in the pot having contributed $3 each, for $9 "live" money; the remaining $5 (representing the antes of the players who folded) is dead money. The amount of dead money in a pot affects the pot odds (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pot_odds) of plays or rules of thumb (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_thumb) that are based on the number of players.

Another source
http://pokerterms.com/dead-money.htmlTerm referring to money in a hand that was contributed by players who are no longer involved. For example, if the small blind were to fold, his blind would be considered "dead money."

The definition of Dead Money is, at least from what I have gathered, very specific to the money left over by no longer active players. Like €1 from the Big Blind.

Now I am not saying that this solves the EV problem. But let's not deviate from terminology and make it suit are own definitions.

#10

4th May 2016, 7:16 PM

DrazaFFT [5,845]

Online Poker at: FT, PS

Game: NLHE

In this situation dead money is BTN 3bb open + your 3bet of 15bb plus the amount that he needs to add to complete your 3bet so its 30bb

For example, if one open shoved TT and other insta called AKo there would be no dead money in the pot so stacking AKo in this situation would be -ev

#11

4th May 2016, 7:17 PM

rhombus [2,578]

Game: NL/PLO/PLO8

maybe dead money was the wrong term, think of it as money that no longer belongs to us

on a side note it probably wouldn't be +EV for Hero when you take out the rake

#12

4th May 2016, 7:20 PM

Daithi [123]

Originally Posted by rhombus

+1.

Alot of people tend to think the money in the pot is theirs, when it actually belongs to the pot.

Exaggerated example Full Ring all $100 Effective.

UTG raises $99 they all call.

On the flop UTG bets his last $1 and voila +EV for all 9 players

This is the problem I seem to identify. All the poker books seem to put no relevance on the origin of the money in the pot, perhaps it is because it would be too hard to work out. In multiway pots, 3 and more you have nothing to worry about. But I am convinced, perhaps mistakenly, that there is an unspoken and undressed issue when only 2 players are involved. Seemingly the "source origin" appears to be more important for positive winrate.

#13

4th May 2016, 7:22 PM

Daithi [123]

Originally Posted by TimovieMan

If Hero knows the opponent has TT ALWAYS, then it's going to be -EV for him. But he doesn't.

That's why I have simplified it. In the other thread it was discussed vs range. Of course in real life scenario it would be vs range. But we are trying to discuss the theory, therefore I have made the hands specific and we know exact equities.

#14

4th May 2016, 7:25 PM

Daithi [123]

re: Poker & Heads up allin EV question

Originally Posted by DrazaFFT

In this situation dead money is BTN 3bb open + your 3bet of 15bb plus the amount that he needs to add to complete your 3bet so its 30bb

For example, if one open shoved TT and other insta called AKo there would be no dead money in the pot so stacking AKo in this situation would be -ev

It still cannot be dead money by definition as the 2 players are live, only the 1bb is dead money. But I understand what you mean, it is the pot money, the pot.

#15

4th May 2016, 7:28 PM

TimovieMan [2,264]

Poker at: Pokerstars

Game: Texas Holdem

Originally Posted by Daithi

That's why I have simplified it. In the other thread it was discussed vs range. Of course in real life scenario it would be vs range. But we are trying to discuss the theory, therefore I have made the hands specific and we know exact equities.

Then every raise AK makes preflop is -EV. He needs to see a flop.

But the thing is, you NEVER know exactly what they have, so you're ALWAYS making decisions vs ranges. And when you do that, the entire hand is +EV.

Also, the exact definition of dead money is irrelevant to the discussion.

#16

4th May 2016, 7:31 PM

DrazaFFT [5,845]

Online Poker at: FT, PS

Game: NLHE

Originally Posted by Daithi

It still cannot be dead money by definition as the 2 players are live, only the 1bb is dead money. But I understand what you mean, it is the pot money, the pot.

Well yea, we can call it how ever the money that is already in the pot, that alot of people call the dead money dictates would the hand that have negative equity to win would actually be in the +ev situation, dont try to be super specific, believe me, lot of published authors have totally different view of what the dead money is, with two of us being in the pot on the flop and all the money invested in that pot are from two of us would that money still be live cuz we are both still in the pot? No, its dead money cuz it already belongs to pot, thus your 3bet so as his open are belong to pot and you wont be any wrong in any discussion if you call it dead money

#17

4th May 2016, 7:46 PM

Daithi [123]

Originally Posted by TimovieMan

Then every raise AK makes preflop is -EV. He needs to see a flop.

But the thing is, you NEVER know exactly what they have, so you're ALWAYS making decisions vs ranges. And when you do that, the entire hand is +EV.

You don't have to in a theoretical construct focused on a very specific issue . So let's use even a little more surrealism. Hero did not know what he had, he didn't put him on a range. Hero is a fish and did not want to fold the Slick no matter what. So he called his shove, BTN showed TT, percentages on Pokerstars for example were shown.

I mean, if you are so hung up on ranges, I can punch in a range that will produce me the exact same odds as in original post (so I wouldn't have recalculate the whole thing), albeit unrealistic one.

#18

4th May 2016, 7:49 PM

Daithi [123]

Originally Posted by DrazaFFT

Well yea, we can call it how ever the money that is already in the pot, that alot of people call the dead money dictates would the hand that have negative equity to win would actually be in the +ev situation, dont try to be super specific, believe me, lot of published authors have totally different view of what the dead money is, with two of us being in the pot on the flop and all the money invested in that pot are from two of us would that money still be live cuz we are both still in the pot? No, its dead money cuz it already belongs to pot, thus your 3bet so as his open are belong to pot and you wont be any wrong in any discussion if you call it dead money

Sure, no problem. We don't need to dwell on the definition. I want to focus entirely on the EV aspect.

#19

4th May 2016, 7:50 PM

rhombus [2,578]

Game: NL/PLO/PLO8

when you punch you range in dont forget to include the fold equity

#20

4th May 2016, 7:54 PM

Daithi [123]

Originally Posted by rhombus

when you punch you range in dont forget to include the fold equity

Okay, but this is deviating from the topic . It is irrelevant whether he folds to our raise. We are, well I am, talking about a very specific situation when both 2 players are all in and showing +EV. I mean if hero shows +EV, I would like to understand how it would manifest in his bankroll as a positive value, because as I said that situation played over and over again would have Hero bankrupt in a week, but he'd be showing +EV

#21

4th May 2016, 7:56 PM

Daithi [123]

re: Poker & Heads up allin EV question

Originally Posted by rhombus

when you punch you range in dont forget to include the fold equity

By the way, does Equilab handle fold equities, I wonder? I haven't seen it there and that's what I use.

#22

4th May 2016, 7:57 PM

DrazaFFT [5,845]

Online Poker at: FT, PS

Game: NLHE

Originally Posted by Daithi

Sure, no problem. We don't need to dwell on the definition. I want to focus entirely on the EV aspect.

Exactly specially cuz its such gray area already, anyway im bit lost in this discussion with all the things i try to do at the same time and also try to keep up here

I guess i better get back after freeroll stars and reread all thing again

Dont go away guys, ill be back soon

#23

4th May 2016, 8:00 PM

Daithi [123]

Originally Posted by DrazaFFT

Exactly specially cuz its such gray area already, anyway im bit lost in this discussion with all the things i try to do at the same time and also try to keep up here

I guess i better get back after freeroll stars and reread all thing again

Dont go away guys, ill be back soon

#
Okay . I'll be looking forward.

#24

4th May 2016, 8:04 PM

DrazaFFT [5,845]

Online Poker at: FT, PS

Game: NLHE

Originally Posted by Daithi

Okay, but this is deviating from the topic . It is irrelevant whether he folds to our raise. We are, well I am, talking about a very specific situation when both 2 players are all in and showing +EV. I mean if hero shows +EV, I would like to understand how it would manifest in his bankroll as a positive value, because as I said that situation played over and over again would have Hero bankrupt in a week, but he'd be showing +EV

No +ev situation would ever bring you to bankruptcy, you just need to understand that it is a thin edge situation, meaning that it would be so swingy and better have a big hypothetical bankroll if you wanna run this situation long term (hypotheticaly speaking of course). Also important is to fully understand why is this a +ev and when it would be and when it wont, as i said if he insta shove and you insta call it would be -ev but if he opens, 2 people call you sqz he shoves and only you need to call the will be enough money to compensate your <50% equity...

#25

4th May 2016, 8:27 PM

rhombus [2,578]

Game: NL/PLO/PLO8

Originally Posted by Daithi

By the way, does Equilab handle fold equities, I wonder? I haven't seen it there and that's what I use.

Not sure but dont open Equilab if you have Pokerstars open .

Try

http://http://redchippoker.com/fold-equity-calculator/

#26

4th May 2016, 8:29 PM

mbrenneman0 [1,048]

Online Poker at: ACR

Once a player shoves, then he can no longer act after that, so doesn't that mean he is not an active player, making the money in the pot "dead" for the remaining player

Maybe I'm wrong about what makes some one an active player

#27

4th May 2016, 9:27 PM

rhombus [2,578]

Game: NL/PLO/PLO8

In Easy Game Balugawhale talked about the capitalisation of dead money which changed his 3rd reason for betting, which was to deprive our opponent his equity

#28

4th May 2016, 9:37 PM

Daithi [123]

re: Poker & Heads up allin EV question

Originally Posted by mbrenneman0

Once a player shoves, then he can no longer act after that, so doesn't that mean he is not an active player, making the money in the pot "dead" for the remaining player

Maybe I'm wrong about what makes some one an active player

What makes the player active is that he/she is still part of the hand, still has their cards.

#29

4th May 2016, 9:44 PM

Daithi [123]

Originally Posted by DrazaFFT

No +ev situation would ever bring you to bankruptcy, you just need to understand that it is a thin edge situation, meaning that it would be so swingy and better have a big hypothetical bankroll if you wanna run this situation long term (hypotheticaly speaking of course). Also important is to fully understand why is this a +ev and when it would be and when it wont, as i said if he insta shove and you insta call it would be -ev but if he opens, 2 people call you sqz he shoves and only you need to call the will be enough money to compensate your <50% equity...

I had calculated instashoves as well, and yes the result was -EV. So here's the deal.

As far as the source of the money, there is no difference between instashove and my example. 1bb dead money + 200bb (100 villain, 100 hero). Equity hasn't changed either since all happened Preflop.

I see no difference between instashove and this example in final result.

#30

4th May 2016, 9:48 PM

TimovieMan [2,264]

Online Poker at: Pokerstars

Game: Texas Holdem

Originally Posted by Daithi

You don't have to in a theoretical construct focused on a very specific issue . So let's use even a little more surrealism. Hero did not know what he had, he didn't put him on a range. Hero is a fish and did not want to fold the Slick no matter what. So he called his shove, BTN showed TT, percentages on Pokerstars for example were shown.

Fish occasionally make +EV decisions too.

#31

4th May 2016, 9:58 PM

TimovieMan [2,264]

Poker at: Pokerstars

Game: Texas Holdem

Originally Posted by Daithi

I had calculated instashoves as well, and yes the result was -EV. So here's the deal.

As far as the source of the money, there is no difference between instashove and my example. 1bb dead money + 200bb (100 villain, 100 hero). Equity hasn't changed either since all happened Preflop.

I see no difference between instashove and this example in final result.

There is a big difference between instashove and your example, because the example in this thread sees 4 decisions, each with their own EV. Instashoves only have two decisions. And even instashove is not necessarily -EV for AK. It depends on what hands TT open-instashoves.

You can shout that I'm getting hung up on ranges all you want, but that's exactly what you should be doing when looking at each decision individually. And that's also why you should take fold equity into account.
The calc is a lot more difficult than instashove TT vs AK.

#32

4th May 2016, 10:01 PM

DrazaFFT [5,845]

Online Poker at: FT, PS

Game: NLHE

Originally Posted by Daithi

I had calculated instashoves as well, and yes the result was -EV. So here's the deal.

As far as the source of the money, there is no difference between instashove and my example. 1bb dead money + 200bb (100 villain, 100 hero). Equity hasn't changed either since all happened Preflop.

I see no difference between instashove and this example in final result.

oversimplified the math by excluding the blinds but just wanted to show the difference between 3bet pot and snap shoved pot, add someone who flat 3bet but forld to shove makes it even better +ev situation, see where im going with this?